The court confirmed the agreement for sale was valid, limiting the ability to challenge the decree based on delay and highlighting insufficient grounds for procedural impropriety.

JUDGMENT :

V Srishananda, J.

Heard Sri. Sundar Raj, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri. V.B. Siddaramaiah, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The defendants No.1 and 2 are the appellants in the second appeal challenging the validity of the decree passed in O.S.No.116/2013 and dismissal of R.A.No.60/2018 filed by them on the ground of limitation.

-

3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under:

Respondents herein filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 02.06.2010 whereunder the plaintiff had agreed to purchase the property bearing assessment No.2199/2204/2199 with a Site No.453 situated at Harihar City, 'K' Division, Vidyanagar B Block, measuring East to West : 50 feet and North to South : 53 Feet which contains 10'x10' tiled shed, bounded on the East by : 30 Feet Road, West by : Vacant Site of Irni Math, North by: Site No.452 and on the South by : 454.

4. Of the total consideration, an advance sale consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid and agreement to sell was also registered before the Sub-Registrar, Harihara. Plaintiff had undertaken to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.2,43,000/- within a period of three years from the date of said agreement.

-

5. It is contended that plaintiff went on demanding the defendants to get the registration of the schedule property by paying the remaining part of the sale consideration. However, the defendant went on postponing the same for one pretext or the other and ultimately, a legal notice was issued on 29.05.2013.

6. Defendant intentionally failed to execute the sale deed. Therefore, suit for specific performance of enforcing the contract of agreement to sell came to be filed in O.S.No.113/2013 before the jurisdictional Court.

7. On receipt of suit summons, defendants entered appearance and filed the written statements and denied the plaint averments in toto. They contended that it is not the defendants No.1 and 2 who are the owner of the property, but it is Smt. Meenakshmamma who is also the co-owner of the property being the second wife of the first defendant.

-

8. It is also contended that suit is bad in law for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is further contended by the defendants that they never intended to sell the property and value of the property was more than Rs.30 Lakhs and therefore the suit is to be dismissed. They further contended that they actually obtained Rs.1,00,000/- loan with interest at 2% and while so lending the amount, agreement has been concocted and sought for dismissal of the appeal.

9. Learned Judge after raising necessary issues in the light of the rival contentions of the parties and after due trial, decreed the suit of the plaintiff in part. The operative portion of the judgment reads as under:

"The suit of the plaintiff is hereby partly decreed with costs.

The defendants are hereby directed to refund the advance sale consideration amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the plaintiff with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of agreement of sale till its realization within 6 months from the date of this Order.

-

In case the defendants fails to pay the advance sale consideration amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the plaintiff within 6 months from the date of this order, the plaintiff is at liberty to get execute the registered sale deed by paying remaining sale consideration amount of Rs.2,43,000/- with the following due procedure of law.

Draw decree accordingly."

10. Being aggrieved by the same, an appeal came to be filed before the First Appellate Court belatedly in R.A.No.60/2018.

11. An application under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT w